In which Red may upset a few people
Apr. 26th, 2003 12:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redfiona99First a little quiz result
You are KANE AND THE UNDERTAKER! Two big men, and
I'm NOT talking about their height ;) An
inharmonious couple, to be sure, but there's
nothing like angst, is there?
Which WWE taboo couple are YOU?
brought to you by Quizilla
All those who are not surprised :)
And now for the quite possibly annoying to some part of the post. First, I would like to issue the following caveat - my LJ, I speak my mind, therefore feel free to disagree but it is my incontravertable right to say what I want.
Which is Redspeak for if I piss anyone off, I'm sorry.
Okay so they're doing a documentary series thing about Leonardo Da Vinci. And apparently they are going to look at the man behind the art - and this is a quote "the illegitimate, gay, self-taught, Renaissance genius."
Which of these descriptions is unnecessary? I'd say the first two since I'm a firm believer in the art being the important thing, not the man.
A true artist goes beyond themselves to create something universal. So to me, it doesn't matter if he was the offspring of two goats and a chicken. He made pretty paintings and designed wonderous technology.
It's actually quite a shame that the build-up put so much emphasis on it being about the private life of Leonardo since there was lots of really interesting technical detail about how he was among the first wave of artists to use oils instead of tempera (something I have to learn about for blasted Chemistry). I think part of the problem stems from me being a born scientist and demanding facts rather than inference from the few surviving documents from that era. And after 400-500 years I refuse to believe they can actually verify half the claims they are making about his private life.
Oh and before anyone accuses me of homophobia or something similar when you don't want the people you respect to be gay, basically the only thing I suffer from is I-don't-give-a-fuckia.
In this harsh celebrity driven age people seem to have forgotten the difference between the artist and the art.
You are KANE AND THE UNDERTAKER! Two big men, and
I'm NOT talking about their height ;) An
inharmonious couple, to be sure, but there's
nothing like angst, is there?
Which WWE taboo couple are YOU?
brought to you by Quizilla
All those who are not surprised :)
And now for the quite possibly annoying to some part of the post. First, I would like to issue the following caveat - my LJ, I speak my mind, therefore feel free to disagree but it is my incontravertable right to say what I want.
Which is Redspeak for if I piss anyone off, I'm sorry.
Okay so they're doing a documentary series thing about Leonardo Da Vinci. And apparently they are going to look at the man behind the art - and this is a quote "the illegitimate, gay, self-taught, Renaissance genius."
Which of these descriptions is unnecessary? I'd say the first two since I'm a firm believer in the art being the important thing, not the man.
A true artist goes beyond themselves to create something universal. So to me, it doesn't matter if he was the offspring of two goats and a chicken. He made pretty paintings and designed wonderous technology.
It's actually quite a shame that the build-up put so much emphasis on it being about the private life of Leonardo since there was lots of really interesting technical detail about how he was among the first wave of artists to use oils instead of tempera (something I have to learn about for blasted Chemistry). I think part of the problem stems from me being a born scientist and demanding facts rather than inference from the few surviving documents from that era. And after 400-500 years I refuse to believe they can actually verify half the claims they are making about his private life.
Oh and before anyone accuses me of homophobia or something similar when you don't want the people you respect to be gay, basically the only thing I suffer from is I-don't-give-a-fuckia.
In this harsh celebrity driven age people seem to have forgotten the difference between the artist and the art.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-04-25 05:06 pm (UTC)That I do get. I mean there was a good one on another channel about Titan, and large chunks of it were about how his paintings made him popular in the Hapsburg royal court, meaning that they took him on as their official painter, meaning he had pretty much a job for life so he could try experimental techniques.
Good point about the way families affect art :)
>>And having said that I do agree that right now at this point unless you are really getting into the artists process or delving into the why instead of the what he did that those two statments dont really matter. :)<<
I think that's part of the problem, I fear they are only using this to get Mark Rylance (the actor portraying Leonardo) naked. Something which I am in favour of normally, but I like it to be purposeful nekkidness. :)